United States Austerity: Government now spending less nominally than Bush

[Acebb]

You are making up numbers.

No I'm not.

 

[akphidelt]

You have to love when an economic illiterate takes to the Internet to pronounce federal spending as a % of GDP - a measure that is included in every OMB budget document & every CBO budget report, mind you - a "meaningless statistic"

It's a meaningless statistic to know how much the government is actually spending, lol.

 

[Acebb]

You are making up numbers.

No I'm not.

You can see how the spending has increased in this chart that is published by the OMB.

They even helpfully have a whole section dedicated to 2005 dollars.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/hist01z1.xls

 

[wabashwonders]

The fact you don't know basic math is astounding, lol.

I think it's funny that he thinks figuring the % of GDP is some complicated calculation. Just more proof that he doesn't know basic math.

 

[Acebb]

It's a meaningless statistic to know how much the government is actually spending, lol.

Actually, no it isn't. As I said, you have no idea, none, what those numbers are or mean, or how they are put together.

But it is really useful to demonstrate how a particular administration sits in relation to others.

 

[Acebb]

It's a meaningless statistic to know how much the government is actually spending, lol.

I guess that is why it is in every WH budget document.

You are comically ignorant on this topic. I mean, to the point of parody.

 

[akphidelt]

No I'm not.

You can see how the spending has increased in this chart that is published by the OMB.

They even helpfully have a whole section dedicated to 2005 dollars.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/hist01z1.xls

3,517,677

3,457,079

3,603,059

3,537,127 Last 4 years of spending

 

[akphidelt]

Actually, no it isn't. As I said, you have no idea, none, what those numbers are or mean, or how they are put together.

But it is really useful to demonstrate how a particular administration sits in relation to others.

They are put together very easily and they mean absolutely nothing in terms of how much the government is actually spending.

 

[akphidelt]

I think it's funny that he thinks figuring the % of GDP is some complicated calculation. Just more proof that he doesn't know basic math.

It's hilarious. He acts like there is some deep meaning to it that no one understands, lol.

 

[Acebb]

I think it's funny that he thinks figuring the % of GDP is some complicated calculation. Just more proof that he doesn't know basic math.

Why don't you explain it.

I'll wait.

 

[Acebb]

It's hilarious. He acts like there is some deep meaning to it that no one understands, lol.

Explain how the figure it put together.

I'll wait.

 

[Acebb]

They are put together very easily and they mean absolutely nothing in terms of how much the government is actually spending.

You have not one utter clue how the figures are derived.

The assertion that they "mean nothing" is comically ignorant.

Beyond parody.

 

[wabashwonders]

Why don't you explain it.

I'll wait.

Lol, oh boy I was hoping for this. Let's use your chart that you showed me earlier and I will show from the figures posted there how they get the %gdp listed. Go to the graph and play along. Lol

 

[akphidelt]

You have not one utter clue how the figures are derived.

The assertion that they "mean nothing" is comically ignorant.

Beyond parody.

In the context of how much money the government is actually spending that number means nothing. And it's a very simple equation, lol. Something that you still haven't figured out I guess.

 

[wabashwonders]

According to the chart in 2012, spending(outlays) was $3537B. Total GDP for 2012 was $15547B. Now let's see, if I take 3537 and divide by 15547, I get 22.8%. Hey, low and behold, if you look at the outlays % of GDP on the chart it is 22.8%. WOW imagine that!!!

ok maybe I got lucky so let's try 2013.

outlays was 3685 and GDP was 16203 and if you divide them you get 22.7%. Ok let's check the chart and low and behold it's 22.7%.

You are right this "basic math" is very complicated.

 

[Acebb]

3,517,677

3,457,079

3,603,059

3,537,127 Last 4 years of spending

Hilarious

Um, those aren't the inflation adjusted figures from Obama's first four years.

These are:

1,929
2,013
2,093
2,271

 

[wabashwonders]

Should I keep going and do more years or have you had enough?

 

[akphidelt]

According to the chart in 2012, spending(outlays) was $3537B. Total GDP for 2012 was $15547B. Now let's see, if I take 3537 and divide by 15547, I get 22.8%. Hey, low and behold, if you look at the outlays % of GDP on the chart it is 22.8%. WOW imagine that!!!

ok maybe I got lucky so let's try 2013.

outlays was 3685 and GDP was 16203 and if you divide them you get 22.7%. Ok let's check the chart and low and behold it's 22.7%.

You are right this "basic math" is very complicated.

Rocket science! You should win a Nobel Prize.

 

[Acebb]

Now we have someone actually disputing that spending went up during Obama's first term.

 

[akphidelt]

Hilarious

Um, those aren't the inflation adjusted figures from Obama's first four years.

These are:

1,929
2,013
2,093
2,271

Now we are talking 2005 inflation adjusted numbers. That's what you guys have to resort to in arguing whether or not Obama is increasing spending less than previous Presidents. Regardless of what adjustments you use, he is still increasing spending at the lowest rate in the last 6 decades.